Dec. 28 Letters to the Editor

We spend all this money in saving the salamander and yet our city has so many homeless people and hungry people. That to me is very sad. Where are our priorities in government spending?

When a salamander overtakes homeless people and the hungry on the priority list, that is very sad.

I was doing some volunteer work in our church last Wednesday when two women with children approached me with tears in their eyes because they were losing the home they were renting. It had been sold, and the landlord wanted them out by Dec. 21. They had checked with different agencies, and they had no place for them to go except out in the street. And yet we worry about the salamander and other bugs that could care less where they live.

Where are our priorities? Let's put our thinking caps on., and Merry Christmas to al

NORA M. WARD

Santa Rosa

Deep sickness

EDITOR: I'm writing to agree with the Sunday letter by Tony Wilde titled “Violent connections.” The drone attacks are done without the permission of the countries they occur in, ultimately by the man who declares we must end these tragedies. I guess they are probably justified as “collateral damage” in the pursuit of terrorists.

I don't see President Barack Obama weep at the unnecessary deaths of these children. Our children spend countless hours playing horribly violent games with the goal to kill as many people as possible with graphic bloodshed. Now our politicians are going to somehow regulate a kinder, gentler world to resolve violence in America.

The sickness is much, much deeper and starts at the top.

BRUCE KUNKLE

Santa Rosa

Stop the ‘categories'

EDITOR: Has congressional apathy and inaction finally come to this? We now create “categories” for mass shootings: Worst mass killing in an elementary school; high school; college; shopping mall; house of worship; workplace; movie theater, or by year: worst since 2007, since 1999, since 1991.

We cannot wait. We need meaningful gun regulation now to ban dangerous types of guns and their high-capacity ammunition magazines. We need to close loopholes that allow people to avoid background checks. Congress, please stop the madness. I am weary and sickened of “categories.”

SHIRLEY PHILLIPS

Santa Rosa

The long view

EDITOR: Another dreadful example of mass killings is with us now. Sadly, this is destined to continue. We should look to see what is happening in other countries. Other countries have crooks, villains and mentally unstable people just as we do. The difference is they do not have access to guns as we do. (Norway was the exception, but it was a single, isolated incident compared to our many incidents.)

“We will ban all assault rifles,” say the politicians. So the next guy will walk in with two loaded pistols and pockets full of ammunition, and the results will be the same. In the meantime, the politicians will be happy that they have “made a difference.”

That is chipping away at the problem. The solution is to stop selling guns and ammunition completely. It will take at least one generation, but eventually they will all be gone. Everyone talks about the National Rifle Association's reaction but it represents about 1 percent of the population. Unfortunately, its money is manipulating politicians. If your politician sympathizes with the NRA, throw him out. Let's do something so the next generation sees less of this craziness.

IAN ELLIOTT

Sebastopol

Dangerous ideas

EDITOR: Hitting a target with the first shot is “gun control.” Restrictions against the right to be armed smack of people control in the guise of gun control or criminal control.

Victim disarmament laws never stopped anyone who used a firearm criminally. Instead, they increase citizens' dependence on government, and they set up unarmed vulnerable users for slaughter in “gun-free zones” which are really liberty-free zones and slaughter zones for unarmed vulnerable users who enter these areas created by fools who pursue civic malpractice per their dandy delusions.

Any mass shooting tragedy “solution” that involves a prior restraint against a right that “shall not be infringed” is unconstitutional, ineffective and counter-productive. It is impossible to regulate a right that shall not be infringed without infringing against it. Citizens who clamor for victim disarmament laws pursue folly. Like a dog that licks its vomit, they lick their ineffective solutions which trade liberty for their delusions.

Civility requires we uphold every Constitutional right, even if unpopular. Those who disagree are dangerous and not civil. Those who advocate that citizens' rights should be forfeited because of what a few do are extremely dangerous. They will trigger civil war if they prevail.

PETER J. MANCUS

Santa Rosa